Posted
by
Unknown Lameron Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:18PM
from the intravenous-data-feed dept.

itwbennett writes "The FCC has voted to require data roaming agreements between carriers in a move largely targeting AT&T and Verizon, the two largest mobile carriers in the US. 'What good is [a] smartphone if it can't be used when a subscriber is roaming across the country or even across the county?' said Commissioner Michael Copps. 'Our regulations must reflect today's reality and not make artificial distinctions between voice and data telecommunications.'"

Yes have to admit, not sure how much difference this will make in the US market where there is already an incredlibly small choice of carriers compared to most other markets. How many of those little 'city-wide' or 'statewide' local carriers really still exist in the US? Most seem to have been swallowed up by AT&T (if GSM) or Verizon or Sprint (if CDMA).

Normally the US leans away from regulating such things and forcing businesses to make agreements with each other. So it says a lot about the lack of competition in the US cellular market that they are considering such a move. By comparison, here in Australia (which is an "OMG socialist' country by comparison to the US) doesn't force carriers to have roaming agreements (even though as a whole there is much more government regulation of industry here than in the US). But we have at least 6 or 7 major nationwide carriers here, so roaming isn't really even necessary in the first place.

I visit the US regularly (am there for several months a year) and the state of the mobile telephony and ISP industries in the US is frankly, awful. Australia is generally way more expensive in most areas of life... but not in Internet/phone. In Australia I can pick from 30+ ISPs and a dozen cellular carriers (all GSM) at any point and most offer contract-free service. In the US most places have 1 choice of cable ISP, 1 choice of DSL ISP, and maybe 2 or 3 cellular networks (which aren't even interoperable with each other, i.e. once you pick a GSM/CDMA phone you are stuck with those carriers).

So here's hoping this opens the door for some smaller carriers in the US to increase their market share and get some competition back into the market. It's sorely needed.

Except your ISPs suck where it counts. We may pay more, but generally ISP data usage is unlimited. There are a few ISPs that feel it is better to rape the consumer than to upgrade their network, and therefore they impose limits. But when I can spend $70 and get a 25/25 fiber link with no caps, I feel I am better off than Australia with their caps.

The caps historically exist due to the fact that we are in the unique situation of being an English-speaking island located on the other side of the world from where 99% of English content is hosted (i.e. North America and the UK). The vast majority of standard traffic in Australia is thus to/from distant international locations. This contrasts with the US/Canada, where most traffic is domestic, meaning a much greater proportion of traffic stays within your ISP's network or the networks of those that your I

Oh and btw, I agree that if you can spend $70 for unlimited 25/25 fibre, that is freaking awesome. But you're lucky to get that - most places in the US can't. I have a place in the US, in a major city, and can't get more than 6 Mbps/768 kbps DSL for any price.

Seems like if you're on the eastern or western seaboards or a couple of other lucky places, you can get FiOS or some other equivalent. But there are huge portions of the country where you can't get anything better than standard DSL or cable.

For all intents and purposes, AT&T has that monopoly now. It will only fail to have it if stopped. The default, and most likely, outcome is the merger will continue. Given the latest from Congress, if the merger fails there will be a bill targeting the FCC's ruling which disclaims their ability to regulate in this area. If there is a suit path available, or a barely reasonable facsimile thereof, expect it to be litigated to the Supreme Court, where the merger will be upheld.

I think the idea is that this could enable phones that are compatible with multiple technologies. I think this is particularly geared towards LTE which AT&T and Verizon are moving to for 4G (T-mobile as well, and Sprint is the odd one out). Of course, the carriers could always block them since that's how things work in American Telecommunications. In the end, it's very likely that this will have no positive benefit for the consumer and carriers will just use it as an excuse to jack up rates... but let's

The FCC, at the very least, has intentions of standing up for the consumer. In practice though, they hardly ever get it right.

Well, thankfully, the FCC created all those rules that gave us mobile data access in the first place. It wasn't so long ago that all I had was a big beige brick phone that didn't even text, so I'm grateful that they finally required phone manufacturers to make smartphones, and cellular providers to sell them and support them with data networks. If it weren't for that, how I would I be able to watch cats that hiccup and fart at the same time while I'm on the train, or alert everyone who knows me to the fact

.. SMS messages are not like standard data.. while the payload might be 160 bytes of text, the overhead and the delivery mechanism involved is much different than your average TCP session.

Primarily because those text messages have to locate the mobile with a page on the paging channel before sending the actual text itself. Paging channel requires SS7 messages to an HLR, MSC, SMSC and some other machines that do functions other than just text.

.. SMS messages are not like standard data.. while the payload might be 160 bytes of text, the overhead and the delivery mechanism involved is much different than your average TCP session.

No... they're not like standard data. They're more like the overhead involved in connecting a phone call.

When was the last time you saw a mobile carrier charging you $0.10 or $0.20 per mobile-to-mobile call to connect the call?
Oh right... they don't... because it costs less than $0.01 per call to do that; you

The 15 million was from the OP statement of equating data to equivelent text messages.

I wasn't really addressing what the carriers charge for SMS.. they will charge what the market will bear and the market bears around $20USD per month for unlimited SMS service on a contract plan. My main point was that while SMS might be cheap to provide.. it is not entirely without cost.

The paging channel is a finite resource and ramping up the number of sms pages like the OP implied would qualify as a mass calling eve

...the FCC can start by abolishing all policies, abandoning all stances and cancelling all position papers that distinguish between a voice network and the Internet. That includes imposing any regulations from regular phone services, such as common carrier constraints, monitoring constraints, price gouging constraints and peering obligations.

It doesn't sound bad, it sounds abusable. Whenever there's two conflicting policies over nominally the same thing (since speech is digitized, is it a voice network or a data network?), the companies most in need of enforcing it are the companies most likely to weasel-word their way out.

I'd love it if sharing happened. Actual, true, bi-directional sharing. AT&T didn't get where they were, though, by sharing, playing nice, playing by the rules, or playing anything but the customer and the FCC for fools.

I'd love it if sharing happened. Actual, true, bi-directional sharing. AT&T didn't get where they were, though, by sharing, playing nice, playing by the rules, or playing anything but the customer and the FCC for fools.

Amen to that. AT&T has more power in the courts than the competitors, so they will simply share more poorly than they will and get away with it, and anyone without an AT&T contract will have crap[pier] service. Ma Bell got the ill communication.

The problem is that currently there is still a difference between the voice network and the data network. The data network just takes up multiple fixed-size voice channels to transfer data. This is off course changing with 3G/4G where voice will also be packetized but there is still a historical reason for it to be different. The pricing difference however is based on corporate greed and the fact that regulations were effectively abolished when AT&T was split up.

Why do cellular providers get to make artificial distinction within the data service.

Email to you phone included in data plan.
Phone mobile hotspot so your laptop can get email... EXTRA $$$

It's all just 1s and 0s, so stop dicking us with "unlimited" data plans that have limits and advertised service speeds that are far from approachable.

Well, my T-Mobile plan is pretty good. I have a 5 Gig "cap", which isn't a hard cap, it just means that I get throttled if I go over it. I don't, however, ever lose connectivity or get extra charges. I pay for HSUPA speeds, and I actually get about 7-8 mbits/sec out of it (that's using a USB tether to my laptop and running a bunch of speedtests, including broadbandreports.com.) I have a G2, and I track my usage (T-Mobile's site gives you that info as well, and they match up pretty well) and I've never gone above about 1.5 gigs in a month. That's just me... obviously your mileage will vary. I can tether and use VoIP software without getting yelled at (or charged.) And yes, I'm thoroughly pissed off at AT&T for screwing up a good thing by buying my provider. Fuckers.

Yep - T-Mobile is awesome if you're in an area where they have coverage. I dread to think what will happen once the AT&T acquisition really kicks in.

Sadly when I'm in the US I'm mostly in Wisconsin, which other than in Milwaukee, has no T-Mobile service. Have to use AT&T. I'm not American but I visit and pop a local SIM in my (unlocked) GSM phone when I do... and would much prefer to use T-Mobile over AT&T if I could.

That's precisely what I'm saying. AT&T works elsewhere. T-Mobile, at least according to the coverage map on their website, has no coverage north of MKE/MSN. Certainly none in Green Bay/Fox River Valley area where I am most of the time. So sadly, I am stuck using AT&T when I'd prefer T-Mobile.

That's precisely what I'm saying. AT&T works elsewhere. T-Mobile, at least according to the coverage map on their website, has no coverage north of MKE/MSN. Certainly none in Green Bay/Fox River Valley area where I am most of the time. So sadly, I am stuck using AT&T when I'd prefer T-Mobile.

T-Mobile plan (for which I pay $65/month for what I listed above) also includes unlimited voice roaming AND unlimited data roaming. Coverage maps be damned, and that's a good part of why I hate this impending merger. T-Mobile was offering a good nationwide service at a reasonable price, and I know I'm going to lose that. "Good for consumers" my ass.

My guess is that AT&T will keep T-Mobile as a "competitor." That way they can have two parts of the market. Just like Tracfone and NET10. They're both owned by Tracfone - and have entirely different charge schemes.

My guess is that AT&T will keep T-Mobile as a "competitor." That way they can have two parts of the market. Just like Tracfone and NET10. They're both owned by Tracfone - and have entirely different charge schemes.

Which is hysterical in its own right. "Owning" a "competitor". Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.

Really though, what it comes down to is that they want to position themselves to serve different markets, have brand recognition for different types of service, and that's one way to do it.

Voice and data are not the same, they are not 0's and 1's as you say.GSM carriers have what is called a link budget. Basically it is the amount of time slots available on any given channel. You can assign multiple voice calls to one channel simply by using an alternate time slot combination.However, when on a PS call (packet switched), chances are you phone is at least a multislot class 10 or 12 device, which means that you are taking up 5 slots!Thus, there is less room for another caller.Or course networks

Voice and data are indeed exactly the same. It's all binary on the T1 / E1 (or multiples thereof), the distinction is entirely arbitrary these days and your explanation is apples and apples (and a little bit wrong). Whatever your phone does in the local loop will almost always be converted to something else as soon as it hits the first junction box or cell site. That conversion is always in favor of the carrier, be it DCME or lossy encoding to increase capacity - this is how it has always been, the mindset

I'm not sure I get your point. Data plans are 29.99 and net you a capped 5gigs. Since you already are accustomed to using wifi I'm sure you don't actually need 5gigs for web surfing, facebook checking etc while not actually at home. Nor do you run the risk of a 600$ phone bill if you tell it not to use data while in roaming mode. In other words that 30 bucks a month gives you a lot of flexibility at low risk. some sort of peering agreement between providers would make this even better.

Virgin offers unlimited text and data plus 300 minutes a month for $300/year but 'suffers' from only using Sprint's network. For my wife's use this is a non-issue but I'm not sure I'd want it to be my only phone as we travel outside of their coverage map fairly regularly.

The Droid is a Verizon phone, which means no SIM. (Often, people condemn CDMA because it has no SIM. This is inaccurate; CDMA networks in other countries have SIM-equivalents. It's just Sprint and Verizon that won't do it.)

Huh... you don't need WiFi (or cellular data for that matter) just to make a CALL. Nothing stops you throwing a 'smartphone' on a plan without cellular data and still using it to make calls and SMS. If you wanted to be doubly sure you weren't using cellular data then just turn that feature off (I'm assuming all smartphones can do this - the iPhone certainly has a 'Cellular Data ON/OFF' toggle so I'm sure most other phones do too.

Exactly. I would much rather see this legislated instead. Carriers should be forced to be device neutral. If I want to use a fancy smartphone as a dumb SMS terminal, that should be my decision, not theirs.

Well I'm not American so I wasn't aware they did that. That's ridiculous. I buy a calling/data plan from my carrier, not my phone. What phone I choose to use on that plan is completely irrelevant and none of their business.

(From my perspective as a non-USian, at least... hell I've had my current phone on 3 different carriers just within the last year).

Well I'm not American so I wasn't aware [US telecom carriers mandate data plans for smartphone terminals, rather than being terminal-agnostic]. That's ridiculous. I buy a calling/data plan from my carrier, not my phone. What phone I choose to use on that plan is completely irrelevant and none of their business.

That's because the US laws are set up to encourage telecom cartels.

On one hand they keep hands off the contractual arrangements between the carriers and customers, on the stated theory that competitio

"Nothing stops you throwing a 'smartphone' on a plan without cellular data and still using it to make calls and SMS."... if you [use] a phone that THEY consider a smartphone [...] they will automatically detect what kind of phone you [are using] and change your plan to a smartphone plan without telling you.

Sounds like smartphones need a "user agent switcher" feature, to let them masquerade as dumb phones when using no-data calling plans.

I can afford a good Verizon plan (and given their coverage quality at my workplace, I'd be insane to go to AT&T, regardless of how good they may be elsewhere), but you're right on the money. If my phone wasn't my primary business contact, dropping over $100/mo for a portable data device would be idiotic. As it is, it's just moderately stupid.

Jesus I forget how much us carriers screw their customers. Mobile internet costs me £60 for the year (less than $100) here in the uk! Up to 5 GB per month with a gradually slower connection if you go over and no overage fees. We have real pay as you go options where you put credit on your phone and it only goes down if and when you use it. Or internet for only the days when you use it for £1/day (~$1.50). It's insane how much you guys are forced to pay. No charges for incoming calls or messages. The ability to switch between any network if you have an unlocked phone and at least 5 major carriers to choose from with many many resellers with their own deals. The legal requirement to be able to unlock your phone (for a fee) if you want. Seriously, how do you all let them get away with it? And now with the possibility (probability) that t-mobile and at&t will merge taking away the only large carrier that seemed to not completely screw over their customers.

Tmobile isn't the decent carrier... It's only notable because they are att compatible. Sprint is the decent cell provider in the Us. With their prepaid services like boost mobile you can get unlimited voice text, and 3g data for 45$/mo. Virgin has some good deals too. And you can opt for a modest flat rate if your a lite user, and save tons. And everywhere I've tried, Sprint's network has been superior to Verizon, with far fewer dropped calls here in SoCal. Plus they've got nice cheap 4g service, and

Tmobile isn't the decent carrier... It's only notable because they are att compatible.

They certainly aren't decent, but seem to screw their customers less was what I meant, lesser of two evils style. And they're not really even AT&T compatible. Same technologies, but different frequencies, for 3G at least.

Sprint is the decent cell provider in the Us. With their prepaid services like boost mobile you can get unlimited voice text, and 3g data for 45$/mo. Virgin has some good deals too. And you can opt for a modest flat rate if your a lite user, and save tons. And everywhere I've tried, Sprint's network has been superior to Verizon, with far fewer dropped calls here in SoCal. Plus they've got nice cheap 4g service, and have much longer than the rest.

If nothing else, Sprint is forcing att & verizon to provide almost as reasonable prepaid plans.

They're sounding a bit more reasonable. Unfortunately for us international travellers it's useless. Most (if not all) of Europe uses GSM not CDMA, so no kit I own will work, and if I get some kit on Sprint it won't work back home. As much as I would like it, I can't really afford two sm

I've had roaming randomly kick in while I was sitting in front of my PC at home. If I didn't set it so my web access would be shut off whenever this happened, it would have shown up on my bill.

So if I own a phone company, can I just randomly flick switches that say people are roaming and then charge them an arm and a leg if they want to continue using the service they paid for? It used to be that you weren't roaming unless you actually left your service area; just like long distance calls over land lines.

This is about roaming agreements between the carriers, not with their customers. The carriers charge an arm and leg for access to their network to outside carriers. Other carriers charge the same arm and leg amounts. If they're both big enough carriers, the charges equal out and your cell phone company can offer you "free" roaming. The little carriers have few towers to offer, so they simply have to pay obscene amounts to access the other cell networks. I believe that's where this FCC regulation is to

I think all presidents would like to be more radical. The problem is the more change you promote, the more opposition you have. Obama is promoting great change in some areas e.g. state supported health care and all the anti-radicals have come out screaming in opposition.

I'd love to get into politics and make some real change for the better. The problem is all the lunatics and vested interests that don't agree with my version of better. Inevitably what I managed to get put through would be a watered down and

And go where? That's the point. The only way you can avoid this is by either not having a phone at all or restricting yourself to landlines. And if you're in public, good luck finding one of the increasingly hard to find pay phones.

At the end of the day this boils down to plain and simple theft. Verizon and AT&T (and their customers via bills) have put respectively very large capitol investments in their networks. Now they are being forced to allow other carriers who did not make these investments access to their private property. The cost of maintenance and other such elements will not be accurately passed on to these smaller carriers, and as a result Verizon and AT&T subscribers will pay more... If the government wants to

Of course its theft. The government stole our airwaves and gave them to AT&T and Verizon for a nominal fee.

Now, they are meekly asking AT&T and Verizon to let competitors use them at a profit to AT&T and Verizon. It seems like a pretty reasonable idea to account for a natural monopoly situation*. Of course, with these things, the devil is always in the details.

*There is a limited amount of frequency, so in the long run we're limited... whether we're anywhere near that or n

How many people are going to feel bad for poor ATnT or Verizon? I don't know anybody who doesn't have some hate for ATnT.

I still find it amazing how well the corporate propaganda has worked to brainwash so many people into screwing themselves; I'm sure I'll be surprised if we ever find out how many fake online identities marketing firms are using to spew more BS.

To put this into proper perspective, traditional phone companies have had to share their networks for a long time without huge marketplace disasters, they simply get a small break using their own network and pay a small fee to use another's network. All the DSL and dial-up providers have been sharing networks in various ways thanks to the FCC requiring them to do so. Yes, the private monopolies would have banned dial-up internet providers if they could have. (AOL wouldn't have existed so 1 good thing would have come out of that.)

LIMITED RESOURCES:It is OUR airwaves they buy monopolies on and our institutions manage them - if they do so poorly its because we the people are incompetent. We currently have a system which sells off bandwidth to the highest bidder and barely regulate the monopolistic usage; this is about as free-market as it can get without the costly chaos of letting anybody make radio noise. I suppose we should allow Verizon to install signal jamming devices or should we regulate that nobody can jam the competition? What constitutes jamming? Who decides? What if two providers bump heads over bandwidth-- the stronger signal and client hardware wins... a temporary battle...

People seem to forget that something as basic as FIRE and POLICE have been privatized in the past and that insanity resulted-- in something that is morally simplistic and necessary; yet they somehow other areas are going to be more civil and more effective by introducing free market anarchy??

Anarchy has a PR man and its the US Chamber of Commerce. "Free market" is just a PR creation.